Harriet Harman: My right honourable and noble Friend, the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has made the following written ministerial statement in the other place today, 30 June 2005:
	"My Department is publishing a summary of the responses to my consultation on broadcasting court proceedings today, 30th June 2005. Copies of the summary have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses."

Beverley Hughes: I have today placed copies of the Government's response to consultation on recording practitioner details for potentially sensitive services and recording concern about a child or young person in the Libraries of both Houses.
	Section 12 of the Children Act 2004 provides for the establishment of information sharing databases (or indexes). The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, announced at Lords report stage of the Children Bill in July 2004 that the Government would hold a public consultation on three issues related to the operation of the information sharing indexes under s12 of the Children Act 2004:
	recording practitioner details for potentially sensitive services on the index;
	access by authorised users to practitioner details once recorded; and
	recording the fact of a concern on the index.
	The consultation ran from 27 October 2004 to 19 January 2005.

Malcolm Wicks: The House will be aware of allegations that have been made in The Times in the last few days about potential fraud in the handling of coal health compensation claims. I wish to make a statement.
	These schemes are a major priority for the Government. To date over £2.6 billion has already been paid to former miners, their widows and families. Over 700,000 claims are being processed in what is a major delivery exercise.
	It is also important to understand that the Department is acting in respect of the schemes under the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is because the schemes are the result of group litigation and delivery is overseen by judges who are still in charge of the cases.
	The matters which the police are currently investigating arise from discussions which my Department had with the Law Society which in turn led to the discovery of information which the Law Society referred to the South Yorkshire police. A full criminal investigation is now underway and we are in close touch with the Police.
	No charges have, however, yet been made.
	The House will understand that in the circumstances I am unable to comment on the nature of the police investigations. I do, however, wish to make it very clear that there is nothing in the matters which are being investigated to suggest that there is any fraud against claimants. Nor is it a matter of the UDM having a preferential agreement; they do not. The investigation is focused solely on issues related to the costs of handling claims and not the payment of compensation to claimants.
	I have decided, however, to take a number of immediate steps:
	my Department has today written to the UDM seeking a complete list of claims which have been submitted through the UDM. That will enable us to ensure that any potential fraud is capped.
	we have invited the UDM to set out what immediate actions they intend to take in respect of the individuals subject to investigation.
	I have asked the chief constable of South Yorkshire police to press ahead with the investigation with all speed and assured him of the Department's full co-operation.
	we have contacted the judges involved in the schemes to keep them fully informed of what we are doing.
	we have written to the Law Society asking for an urgent report on the issues they have been considering on double charging by solicitors, although recognising that double charging is not the subject of the fraud investigations.
	I must stress that I regard these as preliminary steps. I am fully prepared to take further actions as necessary. For example I have certainly not ruled out the option of suspending the operation of the UDM contract while the police inquiries continue. I have therefore asked officials and our claim handlers to assess what impact such action might have on the schedule for the payment of claims.
	I would ask the House, however, to note two points;
	first, nothing I do now should inhibit or compromise the need for the police to carry out the inquiries
	second, I am very anxious to avoid taking any steps which could compromise the prompt payment of claims to applicants. The schemes are highly complex and it is not easy to make changes in the administrative arrangements without risking the introduction of delays—and we have to recognise that a number of those whose applications are being processed are both elderly and not in the best of health.
	I will keep the House informed of developments.